Welcome - illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship ** WON **

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Buggar them evil b*****ds!!!!!

Sorry

The law states they need a court order to repossess off ANY premises.

Premises is defined as LAND and buildings on it.

They admit they didn't have a court order so they are buggared!!!

Roll on Court, I'm ready and willing!!!

[beyondhope]

Keep at um hun to me it seems its a case of putting in a 'defence' in the hope that you will run and leave them alone but thats just imo i can only imagine how many people have put in a claim then withdrawn it for fear of a full on hearing

[beyondhope]

Buggar them evil b*****ds!!!!!

Sorry

The law states they need a court order to repossess off ANY premises.

Premises is defined as LAND and buildings on it.

They admit they didn't have a court order so they are buggared!!!

Roll on Court, I'm ready and willing!!!

 

Thats better

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Very cute cab

 

Been going over their cr*p err... I mean defence, again.

It truly is bizarre, the majority of it is refuting allegations that were never made! I doubt very much if they are going to get anywhere with this because it has buggar all to do with the case

 

They consistently say that the third had not been paid and section 90 did not apply. Yeah that would be a cool defence if I had alleged I had paid a third and the repo was illegal because they breached section 90!

 

When it comes to the things I have alleged, i.e. breach of section 92, their reply is a bare denial, no reasons. I'm fairly sure that if an allegation is denied, reasons must be stated- CPR 16.5(2)(a)

[cab1ne]

 

reasons must be stated- CPR 16.5(2)(a)

 

good point.

 

any chance you could PM there crap (sorry, i mean defence)

i am just in the mood for a good giggle

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hello Post, good to see you back.

In short I filed a claim against them for illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship as a result.

Received their defence today, in which they waffle on about me not making all my payments and how section 90 did not apply. (I didn't even mention sec 90 in my poc!).

Then they admit not having a court to take it off my premises but "deny that this constitutes an unfair relationship and further deny it constitutes a breach of duty on the part of the defendant".

 

Not a dickie bird about section 92 whatsoever. Odd considering that was the basis of my claim!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

The hearing is in 2 weeks.

[postggj]

give me five minutes

[postggj]

92 Recovery of possession of goods or land

 

(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

 

(2) At any time when the debtor is in breach of a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to land, the creditor is entitled to recover possession of the land from the debtor, or any person claiming under him, on an order of the court only.

 

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

 

 

 

if you have paid a third and they did a repo with out a court order

 

game set and match

[postggj]

90 Retaking of protected hire-purchase etc goods

 

(1) At any time when—

 

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and

 

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the goods, and

 

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

 

 

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

 

(2) Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is required to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total price, the amount to be paid in respect of the installation (the “installation charge”) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to one third of the total price shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one third of the remainder of the total price.

 

(3) In a case where—

 

(a) subsection (1)(a) is satisfied, but not subsection (1)(b), and

 

(b) subsection (1)(b) was satisfied on a previous occasion in relation to an earlier agreement, being a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement, between the same parties, and relating to any of the goods comprised in the later agreement (whether or not other goods were also included),

 

 

subsection (1) shall apply to the later agreement with the omission of paragraph (b).

 

(4) If the later agreement is a modifying agreement, subsection (3) shall apply with the substitution, for the second reference to the later agreement, of a reference to the modifying agreement.

 

(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, to an agreement if the debtor has terminated, or terminates, the agreement.

 

(6) Where subsection (1) applies to an agreement at the death of the debtor, it shall continue to apply (in relation to the possessor of the goods) until the grant of probate or administration, or (in Scotland) confirmation (on which the personal representative would fall to be treated as the debtor).

 

(7) Goods falling within this section are in this Act referred to as “protected goods”.

 

 

91 Consequences of breach of s 90

 

If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of section 90—

 

(a) the regulated agreement, if not previously terminated, shall terminate, and

 

(b) the debtor shall be released from all liability under the agreement, and shall be entitled to recover from the creditor all sums paid by the debtor under the agreement.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I didn't pay a third, they repo'd off my premises that's why I was using section 92

(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

 

They absolutely admitted not having a court order to repo off my premises in their defence. It's ludicrous!

[postggj]

has A Trial Date Been Set Yet

[postggj]

I Need To See The Defence Now

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

The hearing is in 2 weeks. Just managed to get my printer working, I'll scan them in now.

[zaidey]

i know im jumping on your thread again..but ive posted some of the letters that welcome branch and compliance sent to me...the authors some win an oscar for there complete and utter stupidity..

 

anyways if you fancy a laugh head over to my thread..

 

could do with some advice

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170693-welcome-finance-help-car-7.html

 

last page has all the juicy stuff on (page 7)

[cab1ne]

paragraph 1: we deny eveything

paragraph 2: it is admitted

 

:confused:

 

cab

[cab1ne]

correct me if i'm wrong.

 

paragraph 19: we defaulted, we terminated

paragraph 22: we defaulted again, we terminated again

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

paragraph 1: we deny eveything

paragraph 2: it is admitted

 

:confused:

 

cab

You've got my poc and if you compare that to their defence you could be forgiven for thinking they weren't even related to each other!

 

Can you see any reference to the main basis of my claim, section 92???

[cab1ne]

You've got my poc and if you compare that to their defence you could be forgiven for thinking they weren't even related to each other!

 

Can you see any reference to the main basis of my claim, section 92???

 

"NOPE":D

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

"NOPE":D

 

cab

Good! I'm glad it's not my eyesight failing then!!

Do you like para 30??

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Look at para 40 of theirs and then para 29 of mine. They must be blind or stupid. Or both!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me they've read my particulars, ignored the bits they don't like then made up a whole new story for their defence!

[cab1ne]

Good! I'm glad it's not my eyesight failing then!!

Do you like para 30??

 

nearly there.

 

paragraph 25: did you really

paragraph 28: i thought i told you to leave that shot gun at ya mates house,

 

cab

[cab1ne]

paragraph 30: absolute classic:lol:

paragraph 35: "WTF"

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

nearly there.

 

paragraph 25: did you really

paragraph 28: i thought i told you to leave that shot gun at ya mates house,

 

cab

Para 25: Yes twice! First when I inconsiderately went out in the car and second when a reputable driver turned up and said, "oh I can't come on to your property and take it without your permission"!

Para 28: Nonsense!! lol! I said I wasn't going to let him take it because it was against the law and I was going to call the police! He really must've had fears for his safety ha ha!

Oh actually my dog did run out the front door and barked at the horrible man, but I didn't tell her to do that, honest